检查 Revit 隧道后端

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'check' action aligns with these. The description adds specific details about what is inspected (pyRevit interface, Revit version, active project), but it does not go beyond what the annotations imply. With annotations present, the bar is lower; still, there is no additional behavioral context like output format or side effects, so a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status-checking tool with clear annotations, the description is complete. There is no output schema, but the nature of the tool (checking status) makes return values predictable. The agent has all necessary information to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description provides context about what the tool examines but does not need to explain parameter details since there are none. Given the situation, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description is clear and does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('检查') and identifies exactly what is checked (pyRevit tunnel interfaces, Revit versions, active project). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on segments and rings, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. While the sibling tools are clearly about segments/rings, the description does not mention exclusions or alternative scenarios, leaving usage inference to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.